Middle East Conflict | Netanyahu orders strikes on Gaza (p1161)

[Damocles]

I will be pleasantly surprised if he answers.

It's an impossible question to answer unless the person defines stolen land and arguably settlers.

There are people out there who claim the entire State of Israel is stolen land and all the people in Israel are settlers. There are others who are referring just to pieces of Gaza. How can you answer a question when the terms are so broad? It's like saying "do you think war is bad?". I mean, maybe? It depends.

 

[Damocles]

So the IDF are terrorists. At last we're in concurrence.

Does that extend to the British Army? Are they terrorists?

You can't claim that a citizen who decides to join Hamas and a professional standing army are the same. That doesn't make any real sense.

 

[Blue and true]

Does that extend to the British Army? Are they terrorists?

You can't claim that a citizen who decides to join Hamas and a professional standing army are the same. That doesn't make any real sense.

The British Army aren't indiscriminately slaughtering hundreds of women and children on a weekly basis.

Hope that helps.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Is the term genocide that relevant or important? Surely the numbers killed speak for themselves.

The most accurate estimates for the number of people ( civillians ) killed by the IDF in Gaza is roughly 59,000.

This is the only figure we have to go on, as the IDF dont release figures and the Israeli government continues to refuse to let independent journalists into Gaza.

This is clearly way too high, this killing just escalates the war further. It just breeds more hate and more terror.

I understand why Israel went into Gaza, but the retaliation and mass killing has and will make this conflict worse in medium and long term.

Casualties of the Gaza war - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The blue phantom]

It's an impossible question to answer unless the person defines stolen land and arguably settlers.

There are people out there who claim the entire State of Israel is stolen land and all the people in Israel are settlers. There are others who are referring just to pieces of Gaza. How can you answer a question when the terms are so broad? It's like saying "do you think war is bad?". I mean, maybe? It depends.

What does the UN think about the land and over 90% of every other nation?

 

[Damocles]

The British Army aren't indiscriminately slaughtering hundreds of women and children on a weekly basis.

Hope that helps.

Not at this exact second (maybe), but I can assure you that they have been repeatedly and consistently for the past around 800 years or so, if you'll allow some blurriness in the history since Henry III.

I'm not sure if you've not noticed this mate but that is basically the job of an Army. It's a distasteful job but when you boil back to its simplest form, killing or helping others kill people for the needs of your country is kind of what they do.

 

[Damocles]

What does the UN think about the land and over 90% of every other nation?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I asked you to define what you are calling stolen land.
Which land? What "90% of every other nation?"

What specifically do you think is stolen land and not stolen land?

 

[robbieh]

It's an impossible question to answer unless the person defines stolen land and arguably settlers.

There are people out there who claim the entire State of Israel is stolen land and all the people in Israel are settlers. There are others who are referring just to pieces of Gaza. How can you answer a question when the terms are so broad? It's like saying "do you think war is bad?". I mean, maybe? It depends.

I get it you're doing your best to let Israel of the hook.
Maybe just stick to what the UN nations defines as Occupied.
The question is then are the settlers who are illegally occupying the West Bank going to leave. Quite simple.

Does that extend to the British Army? Are they terrorists?

You can't claim that a citizen who decides to join Hamas and a professional standing army are the same. That doesn't make any real sense.

Fucking hell. The SS were a standing army. Just because a government pays the armed forces does not make it morally just.

 

[robbieh]

Not at this exact second (maybe), but I can assure you that they have been repeatedly and consistently for the past around 800 years or so, if you'll allow some blurriness in the history since Henry III.

I'm not sure if you've not noticed this mate but that is basically the job of an Army. It's a distasteful job but when you boil back to its simplest form, killing or helping others kill people for the needs of your country is kind of what they do.

And therefore Hamas are justified in what they do.

 

[Damocles]

I get it you're doing your best to let Israel of the hook.

Oh am I not a raging anti-semite and Nazi any more then? That's pleasing. Don't worry, I'm sure I will be again soon in another thread

Fucking hell. The SS were a standing army. Just because a government pays the armed forces does not make it morally just.

Where did I claim it did? I posted about the differences between terrorist groups and a professional standing army and how they are different things. The SS weren't terrorists either. They were an army.

And therefore Hamas are justified in what they do.

Ok it's fine for you to take that opinion but you do understand that if you adopt that position then you've completely negated everything you've said about Israel then right?

 

[Mr Fraser]

Yes, these twats would have labelled Mandela terrorist.

USA classified Mandela a terrorist whilst president of SA

 

[Mr Fraser]

If they've taken up arms then they're terrorists.

Have you watched Louis theroux documentary about the west bank yet. You might see some terrorists there armed by the Israeli govt

 

[robbieh]

Ok it's fine for you to take that opinion but you do understand that if you adopt that position then you've completely negated everything you've said about Israel then right?

I understand what you're saying here. That if I think Hamas has the right to be armed so do the Israelis.
Both will argue they are defending their people.
However it is quite obvious to me that the only justification for an Israeli state comes in two flavours.
The Bible says so. This is so preposterous no further comment is needed.
European guilt for the horrors of the Holocaust. Now this can't be dismissed so easily. It was emotionally pleasing for Westerners assuaging their guilt, and also had the added advantage of placing a European colony, for that is what is, in a strategic part of the oil world.
However neither of these points took into account the desires of the people already living there.
As such the IDF are like a burglar defending his stolen goods.

 

[inchy14]

If they've taken up arms then they're terrorists.

What? Against an occupying force? Were the French resistance fighters terrorists too?

 

[inchy14]

Does that extend to the British Army? Are they terrorists?

You can't claim that a citizen who decides to join Hamas and a professional standing army are the same. That doesn't make any real sense.

How would one join the Palestine army?

 

[dublinblue12]

So your suggestion is that Israel wouldn't commit a quick genocide due to political condemnation (amongst other things). But the thrust of many people's arguments here is that Israel is genociding people and its Western allies are ignoring it.

You can't have this both ways. And I'd argue plausible deniability for an area the size of Gaza would be a lot easier in a quick strike rather than a long drawn out process in the age of social media where everybody has a camera phone. So I'm not sure that really makes

That's not true. Israel cannot use nuclear or massive one-strike means because the world, including its strongest allies, would never accept that. Instead, the pattern shows a prolonged, systematic destruction of Palestinians through repeated bombings, siege, starvation, and infrastructure collapse, carried out incrementally to maintain political cover. That is how modern genocides often happen — drawn out, systematic, and under the cloak of security narratives — not through a single overnight act.

These idiots have adopted an extreme position and are using all sorts of mental gymnastics and twisted logic to justify their fake use of the word "genocide".

All their dubious sources are of course totally reliable while any facts used to counter them are fake in their eyes.

Genocide is defined by intent to destroy a group, not whether their birth rate temporarily goes up or down. Even with a high birth rate, acts of mass killing, displacement, starvation, and systematic destruction of civilian life can amount to genocide. The UN definition is destroy in whole or in part — it doesn’t require total population extinction, only systematic harm aimed at erasing a group’s ability to exist safely on their land. Gaza’s high birth rate shows resilience, not a lack of genocidal acts against them.” I doubt that graph will continue in an upward trend if things continue.

Israeli soldier describes arbitrary killing of civilians in Gaza

Speaking in a rare on-camera interview with Sky News, the soldier said the criteria of opening fire on civilians shifted depending on the commander.

news.sky.com

An IDF soldier speaking out in the news today.

 

[BertM19]

 

[The blue phantom]

That's been increasing in percentage every month. Tbh it aligns with some posters feelings on here too.

 

[Blue and true]

Not at this exact second (maybe), but I can assure you that they have been repeatedly and consistently for the past around 800 years or so, if you'll allow some blurriness in the history since Henry III.

I'm not sure if you've not noticed this mate but that is basically the job of an Army. It's a distasteful job but when you boil back to its simplest form, killing or helping others kill people for the needs of your country is kind of what they do.

Christ, how far back do you want to go? I don't doubt that centuries ago our army committed atrocities. But how many members of our armed forces, within living memory, have committed war crimes? Were innocent civilians indiscriminately killed in their thousands by British forces in Iraq? Afghanistan? Northern Ireland? Maybe some veterans on here could put me right and tell me innocent people were slaughtered whilst waiting in aid corridors in those countries. Members of our armed forces have to operate within laws specifically tailored to wars. It's what stops a designation of "murderer" if they ever have to engage in combat and happen to kill.

Which leads me to your second paragraph. I wholeheartedly disagree with it. The basic job of our armed forces is to defend, the clue is in the name; ministry of defence. They are taught to kill as a very last resort. Gratuitously killing people waiting for food is not a remit our soldiers will have. And if we accept their job, and any job of a civilized army operating within legal boundaries, is to defend, then how do we reconcile killing children waiting for food with defence?

TL:DR
It's lunacy to compare our armed forces with the IDF.

 

[bluethrunthru]

deny power, deny water, deny food - express a will to kill everyone - but its defence not genocide. I don't think they care any longer what the world sees them doing and thinks about them any more. No wonder Cypriots are are becoming unhappy with what is happening there